We’d like to know a bit more about you, so we can come to your place while you’re asleep and rifle through your fridge for premium cold cuts. No, seriously, we’d be grateful if you complete the survey linked below to give us some insight into who listens to us. Although we won’t turn down prosciutto, if you have it.
This week’s episode covers double jeopardy, a legal concept that should be easy, but technical legal rules have made complicated and kind of boring. To that end(!!), Brett and Nazim spice up the case of Currier v. Virginia, where the Court has to determine whether a severed charge can be tried following an acquittal. Law starts at (07:09), but before them Nazim talks about how he thinks he could be the Bachelor, sooooooooo skip at your own peril.
This week’s episode tackles the wild and unpredictable world of Family Court, where everyone is nuts and there are no rules. Brett and Nazim cover the case of Sveen v. Melin, where the Court is asked whether a revocation upon divorce statute automatically changes a life insurance beneficiary retroactively, or if people have to still do it themselves. Law starts at (06:00).
This one should be easier: just three cases, and the better host (me) is beating the worse host (Brett) in the rankings, so everything is okay. Now, I have to just not screw this up. All I need is for him to keep being wrong. How hard can that be?
With that said, welcome back to our SCOTUS Fantasy League: here’s the April Ballot.
This week’s episode, which was intended to a brief discussion on Hughes v. U.S. to compensate for Brett’s lost voice, quickly turned into a more substantive discussion on plurality opinions, sentencing guidelines and actual buffets. So the title isn’t really a joke, cuz like the last ten minutes is legit all about buffets. The law starts at (03:36), but if you hate food talk, feel free to bail around the time Brett talks about eating oysters at the Chinese buffet.
First off, this week’s episode covers the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocate v. Becerra, which decides whether or not a California Statute (the FACT Act) that requires specific disclosures of Reproductive Family Centers violates the First Amendment. Brett and Nazim have a brief crash course on general abortion rights under the Constitution and then cover why the statute may end up a 1-1 tie. Secondly, I think we did a really good job with the title of the podcast this week. Law starts at (03:11).
This week is a total bummer, as Brett and Nazim cover two cases, Microsoft Corp. v. U.S. (dealing with the U.S. jurisdiction to seize digital assets overseas) and Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31 (aka the Unions)(dealing paying union dues when you’re not the union), that depending on how you feel about privacy or organized labor could be a real downer. Brett and Nazim look on the bright side of both cases, by either arguing why the good side should win or why it won’t be a bad thing if they lose. (Law at 5:20).
We’re live from Brett’s living room today, as Brett and Nazim go old school to explain why immigrants don’t have bail hearings (Jennings v. Rodriguez), why Congress can decide cases for the Courts (Patchak v. Zinke), and why podcasters shouldn’t eat while recording. Law starts at (03:10).
The following scores represent three cases, with three others getting DQ’ed for being within the one month grace period (we may shorten that next year). The cases scored below are D.C. v. Wesby (makeshift strip club), Class v. U.S. (guns on the capital building) and Patchak v. Zinke (friendly neighborhood Indian casino). Digital Realty v. Somers (snitches get stitches), Murphy v. Smith (math and vocabulary) and Texas v. NM and Colorado (seriously who cares about this case anyway) didn’t make it. There’s still a ton of cases left, so make sure you fill out ballots (old or new) and periodically check up to see scores. We’ve also (fingers-crossed) figured out a sophisticated system, but if you have any objections please email us (keeping in mind the prize for winning is a box of junk). Scores are as follows:
NINETY-FIVE POINTS (95)
Mitchell, Austin, Coridan (??)
EIGHTY-FIVE POINTS (85)
Ray, who may still cheat.
EIGHTY POINTS (80)
Dan
SEVENTY FIVE POINTS (75)
Brian S.
SEVENTY POINTS(70)
(sigh) Nazim, Spencer, Tony, Adam
SIXTY FIVE POINTS (65)
KC, Max N.
SIXTY POINTS (60) – *Best Group*
Brett, BIGBEARSDAD, Chad
FIFTY FIVE POINTS (55)
Arturo, Ken H., Someone known only as “Doing it Wrong”, Todd, Alyssa (who rules for still listening), and Fabian (who also rules)
FORTY FIVE POINTS (45)
Tulsa’s Favorite Daughter Penni S., Silvia, Steven, Andy “Not a Half-Man”, Anthony
FORTY POINTS (40)
Kyle WM, C3PO Sam, James S., Cade, Vito, PLUS my two favorite listeners Drew (who asked a SCOTUS attendant about who ate at McDonald’s while on a tour) and Daniela (who called us cool uncles on an iTunes review)
THIRTY POINTS (30)
ZLM, KJ, John the Prosecutor, Scott, Lane (sleeping giant)
TWENTY FIVE POINTS (25)
Neil (another sleeping giant), Zoe F., Girl Carew, Sarah C.
FIFTEEN POINTS (15)
Brad, Kevin (who I went to high school with and stinks), PDUB, JB in Me, Jocelyn, Shannon, Chad, Emma, Victor, my dude Keanuthon, my dudette Laura from Baltimore
ZERO POINTS BUT NOT OUT OF IT (0)
Dan H., Wayne, JB 94, David, Cam (good name), Carrie S. Young Maldy, Brandon, Nora, literally everyone including possibly you, BUT THERE’S PLENTY OF SCORING LEFT TO BE HAD!! DON’T GIVE UP NOW!
This week’s episode is covers a slew of recent decisions dealing with guilty pleas (Class v. U.S.), statutory interpretation (Digital Realty Trust v. Somers), and math (Murphy v. Smith). Brett and Nazim discuss each decision and focus on whether or not the facts of the case matter when dealing with bad statutes. Law starts at (03:22).
GET IT WHILE IT’S STILL FRESH! Seriously, the justices are bound to be putting out some decisions at some point soon, so you should get into this goodness before they do. Because we can’t count those ballots guessing at outcomes after those comes have outed.
So, the March ballot is here. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, go here, and if you want to vote in the older ballots while you still have time, look here. Void where void, obviously.
